House committee advances bill to fund home hardening and neighborhood wildfire preparedness

The House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee on March 4 voted to give Senate Bill 33 a do-pass recommendation after testimony on a package of standards and grants aimed at making homes and neighborhoods more survivable in wildfires.

Advocates and the bill sponsor said the measure is intended to respond to rising insurance costs and repeated structure losses in New Mexico’s mountain communities. The bill would create a task force to develop defensible-space and home-hardening standards consistent with the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), require mapping of high-risk areas, and create two grant streams: grants to political subdivisions for neighborhood-scale home-hardening and fuel-reduction work, and grants to qualified entities to assist property owners who cannot afford upgrades themselves.

“People’s insurance — I’ll just give you one example. One of my friends lives in a pretty good area there on, in Ruidoso, and his property insurance was $2,200 a year. Now it’s almost 7,000,” Representative Vincent, the bill sponsor, told the committee. He and witnesses said insurers are reducing coverage or dramatically raising premiums in high-risk mountain areas.

Laura McCarthy, introduced as an expert witness working with the state forester and IBHS, described the research the institute uses to identify home characteristics tied to survivability. “There are a set of characteristics that really improve the survival of homes,” McCarthy said. Michael Newman, general counsel for the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, told the panel that mitigation actions are “achievable and affordable, but they’re not free,” and said the bill’s grant program would help neighborhoods avoid “random acts of retrofitting.”

Committee members pressed for details the bill leaves to the task force. The substitute language added mapping responsibilities and directs the task force to set eligibility criteria; the committee heard that mapping is currently “primitive” and would be a first priority if the bill passes. The bill text does not itself list precise eligibility thresholds; committee testimony explained the plan is to prioritize neighborhoods where a strong majority of homeowners adopt measures and to direct financial assistance to those who cannot afford upgrades.

Legal questions about the state constitution’s anti-donation clause surfaced during debate. Representative Garcia asked whether grants to private property owners could violate the clause. The bill’s legal advisor, identified in committee as Shelton, said New Mexico case law has found that private gain can be incidental to a public purpose and that the proposed neighborhood-scale approach — where benefits are shared across a community — supports the statute as drafted: “If the private gain to the landowner is incidental or consequential, there is no anti-donation violation,” he said. Some members, including Representative Montoya, said they were uneasy and signaled they may vote against the bill on the House floor despite supporting the committee recommendation.

Committee members were also told there is money in the state budget for the program; witnesses and staff said initial funding in the budget totals $20,000,000. The substitute directs at least 50% of grant money to residential purposes and charges the task force with choosing mapping methodology and priorities because the appropriation will not cover every high-risk property at once.

The committee approved a do-pass recommendation on a motion by Representative Sena Cortez, seconded by Representative Murphy. Roll-call responses recorded in the transcript named Representatives Abeta, Dixon, Garcia, Henry, Murphy, Serna Cortez and Small as voting yes and Representatives Montoya and McQueen as voting no; the committee reported the motion carried on a 7-2 vote.

Supporters who spoke in person and online included representatives of the IBHS, PNM, local HOA and county officials; supporters cited recent fires in Lincoln County and elsewhere, difficulty in obtaining insurance, and the neighborhood-focused approach to reduce community-wide risk. Opponents did not appear in the in-room testimony; constitutional concerns from some members were the primary source of in-committee opposition.

The bill now moves from committee with a do-pass recommendation; the statutory details the committee asked for — mapping methodology, qualification criteria for grants, and the task force’s membership and processes — would be developed through the task force and administrative rulemaking if the bill is enacted.

For now, the committee record indicates the measure passed the committee stage and will continue through the legislative process with contested legal questions about the anti-donation clause flagged for the House floor debate.